Ukraine, Putin’s bargaining chip against the West
Ukraine, Putin’s bargaining chip against the West
In recent weeks, concerns about the possibility of a third world war have significantly increased. Ukraine, with the White House’s authorization, used long-range missiles supplied by the United States to attack Russian soil. Russian President Vladimir Putin had previously warned that such an action would mean the start of a war between NATO and Russia and had even raised the possibility of using nuclear weapons.
On the other side, in the Middle East region, and especially in recent days in Syria, rapid developments have occurred that led to Assad’s downfall. All these developments can be traced back to the behind-the-scenes actions of Russia and Trump’s America, developments that have somehow intertwined with the Ukraine war game. Both regions lay the groundwork for a world war, and if not contained, this is a serious danger. It is clear that no government wants a widespread and comprehensive war, so the flames of war, especially the three-year war in Ukraine, must be extinguished. Russia still insists on its demands in Ukraine, and the result of this exhausting war has led both sides to consider ending it. Although Russia’s threats may initially seem like a bluff to pressure the West, Putin has always made these threats appear more serious with a series of actions.
Putin’s strong reaction, which was contrary to his previous caution in crises, has complicated the path to any peace agreement. In America, there is still division among factions. Some liberal analysts believe that the imminent presidency of Donald Trump, instead of hastening the end of the war as he promised, might prolong it, and if Trump cuts military aid to Ukraine, a significant incentive for Putin to end the war will disappear. On the other hand, the presence of war hawks in Trump’s cabinet might indicate a deviation from the peace agenda he promoted in his election campaign. However, Trump has strong reasons to prove his critics wrong.
He knows that failure in foreign policy can reduce a president’s popularity, and he has built his reputation on the ability to end a war that began and intensified during Joe Biden’s era. Trump prefers to make the final agreement in secret negotiations with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky.
Additionally, Moscow is likely to retain the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine that it currently controls.
According to a recent Gallup poll, for the first time, more than 50% of Ukrainians want quick negotiations to reach a peace agreement, even if this agreement includes territorial concessions. After Trump’s victory in the elections, Ukrainian officials have shown more willingness to accept such an agreement.
Putin may also be ready to accept an agreement similar to what Trump’s deputy proposed.
Although the current military situation is in Moscow’s favor, Russia’s achievements have come at very high costs.
The rate of Russian military casualties has reached its highest level since the start of the war, and if the war continues until 2025, Putin may be forced to announce a new mobilization of forces and face the risk of domestic discontent.
The most challenging remaining issue will be post-war security guarantees for Ukraine. Kyiv wants to join NATO, a move Moscow strongly opposes.
Trump’s transitional team has considered a plan to suspend Ukraine’s NATO membership for 20 years, indicating that Trump might be looking for a solution that preserves the image of Zelensky and Putin.
Ultimately, there is no guarantee that Trump will take the necessary actions to end the Ukraine war or even be able to do so. Nevertheless, in the absence of another leader who can push the parties towards peace, the best hope for ending the Ukraine war may still be Donald Trump.
The Ukraine war, the West’s greatest challenge with Russia
Perhaps today, the West Asian region is the most important crisis in the Middle East regarding East-West relations, but the reality is that Ukraine is essentially a buffer zone or vacuum area between Russia and the West. For Russia and Europe, it holds special importance, a higher importance for regional and even global security.
In this war, Russia has been entirely involved for three years and is seeking to achieve its strategic goals, part of which includes occupying parts of this territory. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the concern for Europe and the world was the expansion and continuation of the war in other areas and the possibility of a third war being on the way.
Russia tried to justify this invasion by blaming the West and claiming that this action was a preemptive move to prevent NATO’s expansion and consequently a threat to Russia’s security.
The West, by setting the stage for this invasion, believed that the land of Ukraine would become a quagmire for Russia.
While not all calculations turned out correct, perhaps with the measures the West took against Russia, it thought that Russia would kneel before it, but it has now become clear that results other than the set goals for the US and Europe have emerged in this war.
In the continuation of the Ukraine war, it was Putin who consistently spoke of Russia’s new demands in a multipolar world and the end of the past era, emphasizing his demands in this war. At least from the perspective of Russia’s political stance throughout this war, which has now lasted three years and inflicted significant damage on Ukrainian society and countries under threat, no change has been seen in its leader’s positions. The differences among Western allies regarding support for Ukraine have perhaps been more evident than Russia, which managed to draw countries on this side of the war, like China or North Korea, and even Iran, which is neighboring Russia, and even other major Asian and influential countries like India, into supporting it or adopting a neutral stance.
Uncertainty about the outcome of the war
The situation imposed by the latest status of the war on both sides still leaves uncertainties about its future. On one hand, Russia has generally achieved its initial demands by capturing the eastern Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula, and it seems that if conditions for negotiation are favorable, it will accept some form of compromise. However, Ukraine has set the condition for negotiation as securing NATO membership and ensuring no threat from Russia after a ceasefire, and under such conditions, it will agree to negotiate and give up these occupied eastern territories. Recently, when it seemed the war had reached a stalemate, Putin once again intensified his offensive. What solution Trump wants to propose to Russia in the current situation is a big question, but Trump has responded that revealing the details of his plans limits his options. He prefers to make the final agreement in secret negotiations with Putin and Zelensky.
Therefore, the likely prediction is that Russia and Trump will reach a compromise through a diplomatic process in the ongoing Middle East crisis, including Syria and the issue of Israeli interventions in Lebanon and Gaza, which have put Russia in a bind, and in Ukraine, they will reach agreements. Although the rapid developments in Syria have realized this prediction and the Assad regime has fallen, it is clear that this is the beginning of extensive regional developments in the West Asia domain. It can be imagined that with Trump’s start in office, the fate of the Ukraine war will also accelerate. An end to the war by agreement is a significant advantage for Russia. It is still not possible to enumerate the final outcomes and potential achievements of the war for Russia, but what is certain is Putin’s focus on achieving his strategic goals in Europe and against America, as Russia’s achievements have come at very high costs.
The rate of Russian military casualties has reached its highest level since the start of the war, and if the war continues until 2025, Putin may be forced to announce a new mobilization of forces and face the risk of domestic discontent.
Even if the war ends and an agreement is reached between the parties, many ambiguities regarding Ukraine and Russia’s future position in Europe and its relations with America as the two main players on the international stage remain. Russians believe that global relations after the end of the Ukraine war will differ from before, and they constantly present themselves as the victors of this war, while the same claim is made by America and NATO regarding defeating Russia. They argue that without strong support for Ukraine, Russia intended to erase Ukraine’s map, while today this is not the case, and this country maintains its sovereignty.
The strategic goals in this war, from the perspective of the two players, namely the US and Russia, hold more importance than Ukraine itself because occupying Ukraine serves as a buffer position between East and West for Russia. If this success is not achieved, the eastern regions of Ukraine will at least maintain a buffer status for Russia. The most challenging issue will be the remaining security guarantees after the war for Ukraine. Trump’s transitional government has considered a plan to suspend Ukraine’s NATO membership for 20 years, indicating that Trump might be looking for a solution that preserves the image of Zelensky and Putin.
Ultimately, there is no guarantee that Trump will take the necessary actions to end the Ukraine war or even be able to do so. Nevertheless, in the absence of another leader who can push the parties towards peace, the greatest expectation for ending the Ukraine war may still be Donald Trump’s plan.
In conclusion, one can also consider a third theory in the expert analysis related to this issue and in connection with global security from the perspective of this war. The West is battle-averse, and a swift victory has major defeats for Russia and will affect it in the long run. The West deliberately guided Russia down this path. Russia did not have the capacity for two decades to realize this alarming fear, but in Ukraine, it gave a sharp response to the West. However, Russia’s problem with this invasion was not solved; rather, it became entangled in a way that will no longer be resolved.
The main question is what neighboring nations with Russia should do in the face of the dual attraction of East and West. What led to NATO’s expansion eastward was the desire of these nations in Eastern Europe, not merely the desire of America or NATO. If before this unprecedented military buildup and bombardment by Russia, it had a chance to maintain its influence, from now on, it will only have to keep Ukraine, in case of complete occupation, by force, which is not feasible in the long term.
For Ukraine, it would have been better to moderate its Western orientation and establish a positive balance in dealing with Russia and the West. Russia’s mistake was much larger, more damaging, and unjustifiable. The West, like cunning old men, led a boisterous young man towards drunken violence to incapacitate him in the long run. In one sentence, the West cannot pull out the teeth of this Siberian bear, but it forced the bear to bite into bitter meat, either forcing it to release it or keep it clenched in its jaws for years.
